Aside from the question of what is right and wrong in this case you have to wonder about the daily fine.
Either the judge decides you have to disclose your sources or not. Setting a daily fine to basically discipline or coerce someone to do what you want by increasing the pressure over time is ridiculous.
Also it allows you to buy out of it as long as you are wealthy enough or have financial support by a "big player".
If I were a US citizen I would be concerned by such jurisdiction.
> Rogue government officials who break the law and abuse their power to target private citizens should not be able to remain anonymous and free from consequences simply because they launder their unlawful conduct through a reporter.
Following this logic, whistleblowers are only protected if their whistleblowing follows the law (I sure hope national security law or employment contracts would never provide cover to make any disclosure illegal), and/or no "private citizen" is affected by the leaks.
In other words, they are not protected, ever, and you can always be forced to disclose your sources.
That's why there are specific protections for government whistleblowers?
This case, though, is entirely different. It's not someone reporting that the government is doing something heinous that needs the light of day, it's a government official abusing their position of trust.
How would you like it if someone started posting your tax forms? It's not much different to me than the popo who abuse Flock.
That's what makes it such a good case. Neither the traitors (Chen and her husband are both US citizens) nor the leakers are heroes.
then fine them for leaking private data or something the leaker done illegal, but certainly not for keeping the source secret, how is that illegal? I mean who knows if the source isn't her family? at least here in Europe you have right to refuse testimony against a close family member in court if your statements could bring criminal charges against them or yourself
this sounds exactly same to me, why should she be forced to testify/reveal her source? just because you/police/investigators are incompetent to find the source without her help, so basically giving her daily fine for their own incompetence?
Aside from the question of what is right and wrong in this case you have to wonder about the daily fine.
Either the judge decides you have to disclose your sources or not. Setting a daily fine to basically discipline or coerce someone to do what you want by increasing the pressure over time is ridiculous.
Also it allows you to buy out of it as long as you are wealthy enough or have financial support by a "big player".
If I were a US citizen I would be concerned by such jurisdiction.
That is the type of journalistic integrity that created such idealism about journalism itself. We need more of this.
Who would have thought that Fox News would be an upright citizen in this?
It shows someone there has some motivation beyond this quarter's financial disclosure.
Fox News is over the top in their presentation. The real propaganda outfits write in a sober tone, quote "sources in the know" without naming names.
At this point every outfit is suspect: especially the original Upright Citizens(tm).
> Rogue government officials who break the law and abuse their power to target private citizens should not be able to remain anonymous and free from consequences simply because they launder their unlawful conduct through a reporter.
Following this logic, whistleblowers are only protected if their whistleblowing follows the law (I sure hope national security law or employment contracts would never provide cover to make any disclosure illegal), and/or no "private citizen" is affected by the leaks.
In other words, they are not protected, ever, and you can always be forced to disclose your sources.
That's why there are specific protections for government whistleblowers?
This case, though, is entirely different. It's not someone reporting that the government is doing something heinous that needs the light of day, it's a government official abusing their position of trust.
How would you like it if someone started posting your tax forms? It's not much different to me than the popo who abuse Flock.
That's what makes it such a good case. Neither the traitors (Chen and her husband are both US citizens) nor the leakers are heroes.
then fine them for leaking private data or something the leaker done illegal, but certainly not for keeping the source secret, how is that illegal? I mean who knows if the source isn't her family? at least here in Europe you have right to refuse testimony against a close family member in court if your statements could bring criminal charges against them or yourself
this sounds exactly same to me, why should she be forced to testify/reveal her source? just because you/police/investigators are incompetent to find the source without her help, so basically giving her daily fine for their own incompetence?
before opening the article - what dictatorship is this? China, NoKo, UK?
after opening - US - not exactly surprised in Trumpistan...